http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN1141879320071012

Texan mayors threaten court to stop border fence
Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:39pm EDT

By Robin Emmott

LAREDO, Texas (Reuters) - Texan mayors on the border with Mexico are threatening to take the U.S. government to court and are encouraging ranchers to do the same to block construction of a fence to keep out illegal immigrants.

Six mayors fear the planned fence, part of Washington's crackdown on illegal immigration, will hurt trade, split closely knit Mexican-Texan communities on both sides of the border and endanger wildlife.

Part of a federal plan to build 700 miles of barrier along the entire border, the fence will also cut off Texan ranchers' access to the Rio Grande, the main source of fresh water in the region, the mayors say.

"We have to protect our property and we will do whatever is necessary to ensure there is no wall," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas, a former FBI agent.

A federal judge temporarily halted construction of part of the fence this week in Arizona on environmental grounds.

Since the failure of President George W. Bush's immigration reform plans in June, Washington has been focused on boosting border security and deporting illegal immigrants. Construction of the fence has already begun in California.

Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster said he had received hate e-mails from Americans outside Texas who accuse him of being soft on security. But the mayors argue there are better ways to stop illegal immigrants and drug traffickers.

"The perception in some parts of the United States is that you build a fence and then migration stops. The reality is that it will slow down migrants by three to four minutes," he said.

When asked about the fence, residents in heavily Hispanic southern Texas said few people support it.

Ranchers were also prepared to team up with the mayors in a potential suit over the fence, expected to be 153 miles (245 km) long in Texas, Foster said. Ranchers fear it will run through their land and block off the Rio Grande.

"Besides, we'll be ceding land to Mexico because we'll have to build the wall back from the Rio Grande, which is the border in Texas," said Del Rio Mayor Efrain Valdez.

A SEPARATE REPUBLIC

Cultural and economic ties to Mexico run deep in southern Texas and Mexico is a key trading partner for the state.

Until the mid-19th century, Laredo was in Mexican territory. In 1840, citizens of Laredo briefly formed their own republic -- the Republic of the Rio Grande -- with the northern Mexican states of Coahuila, Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon.

Mayors advocate deepening and widening the Rio Grande to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking, as well as increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and cutting back the Carrizo cane reeds growing on the river banks that allow people to hide in the river banks.

They complain those ideas are being ignored. "Washington is imposing this without consulting us, when we are the border communities," said Monica Weisberg-Stewart, a leader of the Texas Border Coalition that represents the mayors, judges, business leaders and citizens against the fence.

No one at the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol in Washington was immediately available to comment.

Any legal fight would take place in Texan courts, with mayors and landowners arguing that the federal government is trespassing on municipal and private land.

Legal experts say Texans are within their rights to take the government to court but that Washington can use its powers of eminent domain to seize land for the wall.

"Legally, mayors and landowners may not be able to block the construction but they can certainly delay it a great deal and make it very difficult for the federal government," said David Crump, a law professor at Houston University.

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

Don't really care about the mayors, but cutting ranchers off from the water is BS.

I wonder when politicians are going to realize that building a fence just means that most illegals will be caught with ladders? The only way to stop them is to start enforcing laws that punish employers of illegals. Look at Riverside NJ for an example of how well it worked (never mind all the whiny shiteaters who say that they need to repeal the law because it hurt business, no one cares about people who base their business on catering to illegals).

Quoted: Don't really care about the mayors, but cutting ranchers off from the water is BS.

That's a two-sided issue.  For example, out in the California desert, there is an aquaduct that brings Colorado River water to San Diego.  It's unlined, so millions of gallons leak out, and have been supplying Mexican farms and "wetlands".  We want to line the aquaduct to save that water, because it's American water going to an American city and we have no responsibility to provide hundreds of millions of gallons of free water to a foreign country.  But the enviro-freaks on both sides of the border sued, and doubtless there are Mexican farmers or ranchers who could complain about "being cut off from water".

National security vs. a couple of ranchers.

A couple of ranchers pay more for water vs. the entire country pays out billions of dollars per year for illegal immigrants.

Sorry... I say build the fence, and let the handful of people who are adversely affected move or make alternate arrangements.

Quoted: Six mayors fear the planned fence, part of Washington's crackdown on illegal immigration, will hurt trade [. . .]

Those poor judges, they won't be getting their drug trafficking bribes.

Quoted: Quoted: Don't really care about the mayors, but cutting ranchers off from the water is BS. That's a two-sided issue.  For example, out in the California desert, there is an aquaduct that brings Colorado River water to San Diego.  It's unlined, so millions of gallons leak out, and have been supplying Mexican farms and "wetlands".  We want to line the aquaduct to save that water, because it's American water going to an American city and we have no responsibility to provide hundreds of millions of gallons of free water to a foreign country.  But the enviro-freaks on both sides of the border sued, and doubtless there are Mexican farmers or ranchers who could complain about "being cut off from water". National security vs. a couple of ranchers. A couple of ranchers pay more for water vs. the entire country pays out billions of dollars per year for illegal immigrants. Sorry... I say build the fence, and let the handful of people who are adversely affected move or make alternate arrangements.

Fine. BTW:  we've decided to use your property for  new sports stadium parking. I'm afraid you are going to have to make alternate arrangments.  

Quoted: Quoted: Six mayors fear the planned fence, part of Washington's crackdown on illegal immigration, will hurt trade [. . .] Those poor judges, they won't be getting their drug trafficking bribes.

It's more that the Bush people seem to be doing things like putting the fence through the middle of towns 10 miles from the river and then telling the people in town that there is nothing that can be done because "they have to build the fence".  Just more of GW Bush cementing his place as one of the worst presidents in American history.

Quoted: Don't really care about the mayors, but cutting ranchers off from the water is BS.

Easily fixed with water pipes running through the wall.  Hook up a pump and pull you some water.

Quoted: Quoted: Don't really care about the mayors, but cutting ranchers off from the water is BS. Easily fixed with water pipes running through the wall.  Hook up a pump and pull you some water.

There's always a bogus reason NOT to build a wall.
Birds, bees, water, trees, ....

It will never stop until the wall is actually built.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Don't really care about the mayors, but cutting ranchers off from the water is BS. That's a two-sided issue.  For example, out in the California desert, there is an aquaduct that brings Colorado River water to San Diego.  It's unlined, so millions of gallons leak out, and have been supplying Mexican farms and "wetlands".  We want to line the aquaduct to save that water, because it's American water going to an American city and we have no responsibility to provide hundreds of millions of gallons of free water to a foreign country.  But the enviro-freaks on both sides of the border sued, and doubtless there are Mexican farmers or ranchers who could complain about "being cut off from water". National security vs. a couple of ranchers. A couple of ranchers pay more for water vs. the entire country pays out billions of dollars per year for illegal immigrants. Sorry... I say build the fence, and let the handful of people who are adversely affected move or make alternate arrangements. Fine. BTW:  we've decided to use your property for  new sports stadium parking. I'm afraid you are going to have to make alternate arrangments.

Who owns property crossing the border?

Should everyone who has a neighbor who's erected a fence get to sue?

I have an answer!

Build the fence so that THEIR TOWN is on the SOUTH SIDE of the fence!!

bunch o douche mayors


trade may run the economy there

but believe drug payments are lining the mayors pockets, along w/ human trafficking dollars as well

the drug cartels control the boder and all that good stuff.  they are pretty much the law.  then after that its in bush's hands.  and i dont think he is an all state subscriber.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Don't really care about the mayors, but cutting ranchers off from the water is BS. That's a two-sided issue.  For example, out in the California desert, there is an aquaduct that brings Colorado River water to San Diego.  It's unlined, so millions of gallons leak out, and have been supplying Mexican farms and "wetlands".  We want to line the aquaduct to save that water, because it's American water going to an American city and we have no responsibility to provide hundreds of millions of gallons of free water to a foreign country.  But the enviro-freaks on both sides of the border sued, and doubtless there are Mexican farmers or ranchers who could complain about "being cut off from water". National security vs. a couple of ranchers. A couple of ranchers pay more for water vs. the entire country pays out billions of dollars per year for illegal immigrants. Sorry... I say build the fence, and let the handful of people who are adversely affected move or make alternate arrangements. Fine. BTW:  we've decided to use your property for  new sports stadium parking. I'm afraid you are going to have to make alternate arrangments.   Who owns property crossing the border? Should everyone who has a neighbor who's erected a fence get to sue?

You really do not know a thing about water rights do you?

Hmmm.  Somehow I believe that both cattle and walls have been around for a while.  Surely there is some way for them to coexist.

Compromise:  No fence.  Just a minefield.

Win / Win

A big fence is freaking stupid.  The only effectice (and also much cehaper) way to stop illegals is to enforce already existing laws about hiring them.  Cutting off any public money, welfair, medicine, education etc is another big thing.

The fence is all "style over substance."  It is a big waste of money in order to make you think something is being done about the problem.  I can't believe how many ARFCOMMERS (typically a pretty astute crowd) think it's a good idea.

Quoted: A big fence is freaking stupid.  The only effectice (and also much cehaper) way to stop illegals is to enforce already existing laws about hiring them.  Cutting off any public money, welfair, medicine, education etc is another big thing. The fence is all "style over substance."  It is a big waste of money in order to make you think something is being done about the problem.  I can't believe how many ARFCOMMERS (typically a pretty astute crowd) think it's a good idea.

This astue crowd has admired how effective the Israeli fence is.  But of course, it couldn't possibly work here.  Mexicans are like ninjas when it comes to defeating walls.